GIPA vs.
SOUTHERN LUZON INSTITUTE
GR NO. 177425 JUNE 18, 2014
FACTS: On February 26, 1996, respondent Southern Luzon Institute (SLI), an educational
institution in Bulan,
Sorsogon, filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Damages against
petitioners Alonzo
Gipa, Imelda Marollano, Juanito Ludovice, Demar Bitangcor, Virgilio Gojit, Felipe Montalban and
four others namely,
Arturo Rogacion, Virgilio Gracela, Rosemarie Alvarez and Rosita Montalban (Rosita). During trial,
defendant Rosita
executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of her sister Daisy M. Placer (Placer) authorizing the
latter to
represent her in the case and to sign any and all papers in relation thereto.
Finding SLI to have proven its ownership of the property by preponderance of evidence, the RTC
rendered a
Decision in its favor on January 5, 2005.
Petitioners and their co-defendants filed a Notice of Appeal which was granted by the RTC in its
Order of
January 27, 2005. The CA, however, dismissed the appeal in its Resolution of August 26, 2005
since it was not
shown that the appellate court docket fees and other lawful fees were paid. Petitioners and their
co-defendants
promptly filed a Motion for Reconsideration to which they attached a Certification from the RTC
that they paid the
appeal fee in the amount of₱3,000.00 under Official Receipt No. 18091130 dated January 25,
2005. In view of this,
the CA granted the said motion and consequently reinstated the appeal through a Resolution
dated November 2,
2005.
Subsequently, however, the CA further required petitioners and their codefendants, through a
Minute
Resolution dated March 1, 2006, to remit within ten days from notice the amount of ₱30.00 for
legal research fund,
which apparently was not included in the ₱3,000.00 appeal fee previously paid by them. Copy of
the said resolution
was received on March 13,2006 by petitioners‘ counsel, Atty. Jose G. Gojar of the Public
Attorney‘s Office. Despite
the lapse of nine months from their counsel‘s receipt of the said resolution, petitioners and their co-
defendants,
however, failed to comply with the CA‘s directive. Hence, the said court dismissed the appeal
through its Resolution
of December 20, 2006. Petitioners and their co-defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration
invoking the principle
of liberality in the application of technical rules considering that they have paid the substantial
amount of ₱3,000.00
for docket and other legal fees and fell short only by the meager amount of ₱30.00. As
compliance, they attached
to the said motion a postal money order in the sum of ₱30.00 payable to the Clerk of Court of the
CA. The CA,
however, was not swayed, hence, the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution of
March 30, 2007.
Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the appeal for the nonpayment of the ₱30.00 and
shoud
have applied liberal construction in favor of the petitioner?
Held: No. Payment of the full amount of appellate court docket and lawful fees is mandatory and
jurisdictional;
Relaxation of the rule on payment of appeal fee is unwarranted in this case.
Section 4, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:
Sec. 4. Appellate court docket and other lawful fees. – Within the period for taking an appeal, the
appellant shall pay to the clerk of court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from,
the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. Proof of payment of said fees
shall be transmitted to the appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal.
